MANGALA SURESH KANASE Vs. SURESH DADU KANASE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing and setting aside of the judgment and order dated 16.10.1991 passed by the III Addl. Sessions Judge, Kolhapur in Criminal Revision Application No. 137 of 1990 whereby, the learned Sessions Judge has allowed the revision filed by respondent No. 1 and dismissed the maintenance application filed by the petitioner.

(2.) BEFORE I deal with the merits of the case, a very disturbing aspect of this case needs to be noted. By my order dated 14.1.2000, I had called for record and proceedings because for proper appreciation of the arguments of the learned Counsel it was necessary to peruse certain exhibits. The farad indicates that for compliance of my direction message was communicated to the office of the Sessions Judge, Kolhapur. On 20.1.2000 merely the pleadings of the parties were received. The exhibits filed in the Court were not received. The Registrar was, therefore, directed by me to make further enquiry. The enquiries made by the Registrar indicate that though the writ of this Court was received By the Court of District and Sessions Judge Kolhapur, that Court did not give intimation of the same to the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class Ichalkaranji. The said Court destroyed files C and D of the proceedings which contained the exhibits.

(3.) THE facts, which give rise to the present petition, may be briefly stated. The petitioner was married to respondent No. 1 on 28.5.1978. It is the case of respondent No. 1 that, after marriage, the petitioner resided with respondent No. 1 at village Nandre and thereafter they resided at Bombay. The petitioner contends that respondent No. 1 was ill -treating her by demanding cash amount and articles. When she failed to comply with these demands, he drove her put of the matrimonial home. After she was driven out of the house, she made several efforts for settling the dispute. However, respondent No. 1 was not inclined to do. so. For about 5 to 6 months, she resided in the house of one Advocate Khare. Her mental condition was not proper. Her mother had filed a complaint at the Mahim Police Station. She was called at the Mahim Police Station. From there her mother brought her to Ichalkaranji. Respondent No. 1 never came to Ichalkaranji to take her back. She sent a letter to him. The said letter was produced at Exh. 32. However, respondent No. 1 refused that letter. She waited for 8 to 9 years for respondent No. 1 to take her home. She, her maternal uncle and mother went to Kandivali to persuade respondent No. 1 to take her home, but he did not accept her. She has filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights being Hindu Marriage Petition No. 114/85 in the Court of Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Kolhapur. Respondent No. 1 did not accept the summons of that petition.